Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Status Coup News"
channel.
-
14
-
13
-
10
-
Socialism was STRONG in the U.S. in the 1930s. It got FDR the leverage to push through the New Deal. FDR promised to stand up for that - if the UNITED left movements would stop talking about a revolution. (And the black citizens were sacrified to placate the Dixiecrats of the Sough). FDR saved capitalism from its own excesses. Not that the oligarchs appreciated that. (many resigned themselves to it - they remembered the Russian Revolution in 1917.
Some Republican industrial leaders looked with envy at Europe, where many countries - not only Germany - went the far-right or even fascist route. They considered to have their own fascist coup in 1934 - well it never went beyond vague plans - search for Smedley Butler and bonus army if interested. They did not have the military and they did not have the support of the population. They had to bide their time).
In 1944 the Democratic party establishment (knowing that FDR was very ill already) rigged the convention and made sure to sideline the very progressive VP Wallace. (FDR had put up a fight to get nominated for a third term in 1940 and to have Wallace as VP in 1940. - in 1944 he did not do that - maybe knowing they would expose him as being sure to die if he opposed that wing of the party establishment. They could not do anything about FDR since he was so popular, but his illness helped them. (constant very high blood pressure, that causes a stroke within a few years).
The election was in Nov. 1944, in April 1945 FDR died. The right thing for FDR would have been to endorse Wallace in a run for the presidency. I read the Truman was not very well informed and did not even know about the development of the Atomic bomb until he became POTUS. Either FDR was delusional about his risks, or to vain to step down in time (even though he wanted to be the president under which the U.S. won WW2), or he detested Truman ....
Truman the war monger became VP and president in waiting - even though Wallace was very popular (only FDR was more popular, he had done well as Secretary of Agriculture) and he polled much better than Truman when the conventions pulled all tricks to NOT have the vote on him. They cut him off access to the stage, ended a session prematurely.
Those who control the institutions always find ways to violate the rules and leverage the burden of the rules against those who challenge them. That also showed in the 2016 race.
The Red Scare was useful to justify military spending, to start imperialism again, FDR had concentrated on the U.S. and had started a policy of good neighbourhood. Imperaialism in Asia and Latin America for the benefit of big biz. The pretext being the "danger" of communism - a little economic help would have gone a long way that these nations would have had no interest in associating a lot with the Soviet Union.
The U.S. had interests in Europe (needed against the Soviet Union, Europe not the U.S. would have been the first target of a nuclear strike. Also needed as market, they were more developed and white, also some cultural bias because the part of the population that counted in the U.S. had roots in Europe).
The U.S. oligarchs could not screw the working class at home like they used to in the 19th and early 20th century - but they for sure wanted to continue to exploit the poor in the developing countries and former U.S. colonies (like the Philippines).
9
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
No he was in better shape in the debate. I think he does not have the reserves: if he has to campaign a lot or has longer days, he malfuntions more. Because of corona it is not suspicious if he has no events. In general he had a light campaign (even in the early states, he had time to prepare and most other candidates hold an office).
But he worked for S.C. and then he won, the hectic behind the scenes to make him the front runner and to make pete and amy drop out. Then the many interviews and speeches on and after Super Tuesday. And he had to stay up for longer (it is called sundowning).
A few days ago they tried a virtual townhall, but cut that off swiftly. MSNBC reported on that and cut off the snippet before he started fumbling with a sentence.
The next sequence (on twitter)was that he answered a questions, he held a smartphone, there he read the questions (not sure if he was lucid enough to let the audience know WHAT the question was) - those audience questions can be from plants as well.
In the first clip he looked into the camera, in the second clip he looked at the screen of the phone for 1 minute or so, somewhat mumbling, then he forgot that this was not real townhall.
He likes to wander around with the mic in these.
So he wandered out of the focus of the camera. Obviously he forgot - and if he does an event where he is recorded it would be good to look into the camera from time to time, he did that in the first clip.
These were clips on twittter, I have yet to look for the unedited whole thing, but I am under the impression it did not last long and they ended it after they "lost" him.
So a lot of rest, maybe some meds or some oxygen treatment and his answers (what I heard so far) were well rehearsed. I would not be surpised if they had gotten the questions to prepare.
4
-
The shooting of Tamir Rice looked like a driveby mob execution, not like a level headed police action. Car drove there (way too close IF they really suspected the person in the park could be dangerous - or even armed with a REAL gun). Cop hopped out from the passenger seat and shot to kill within a few seconds (under 5). I saw the video online, not sure if it is still available.
Then they failed to provide first aide. A FBI agent happened to be nearby, heard the shot and came over, he tried CPR. Manhandled the mother that had come to pick up her boy. Lied that there were other people in the park, that is the reason for their unprofessional behavior, they feared for their life.
The driver (he had not shot, but the idiot had driven that close) backed up that lie. They did not realize that there were cameras in the park that busted their lame lies immediately.
Shooter cop was indicted, local prosector played the jury like a fiddle, did not even go to trial. And no accountability for lying about the situation either.
They had NO time to check anything out. If there were other persons in the park (No, so no immediate danger, except that the person could be suicidal) - if they had used a megaphone from a distance - and maybe calling backup so the "suspect" could not just leave, that could have been solved amicably.
They were able to get 4 cops on Floyd for a 20 USD counterfeit just fine.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
in 2015 there was a draft campaign: Run, Liz run. Sanders coordinated with her before he announced: had she run, he would not have joined the race (that likely cost him valuable time). They planned their campaign with 30 million USD in small donations, he wanted some issues discussed, especially financial reform and healthcare. No one, incl. the Sanders campaign thought that they would give Clinton a run for her money.
he wanted to serve by having a platform to bring up the issues. He would have let E.W. do the job and likely would have enthusiastically supported her.
But she did not want / dare to annoy the Clinton machine, likely had her eye on a potential cabinet position.
Therefore no endorsement of Sanders. Deafening silence on Dakota Access Pipeline Protests (that was in fall / winter 2016 she did not come out even after the election. Can't annoy the big donros. Big oil, also big finance). Her team wrote a mail to the Clinton campaign that she was "flexible" regarding financial reform - likely to present herself as safe VP pick.
As if Clinton would pick a VP - a woman no less - that would be more popular than her. As soon as she had limped over the finish line and won the nomination she picked bland right-to-work-for-less Tim Kaine. Way to inspire the base, the young, and working class voters.
had Warren been courageous she could have won the nomination - or set the foundation for winning now. had Clinton picked her as VP she would be president now.
Warren played the game of political expendience then and it looks like she does it now.
AOC just explained that when she came to Congress she began to feel the enormous pressure from the establishment to "conform" shut up and sell out the working class voters. And AOC does not even need the party leadership for money or to have a platform.
So that offers some explanation why Warren caved (several times) and why she is flip-flopping and signalling with word salads (M4A) to donors and party establishment that it is "just talk" and that she will be flexible and very willing to compromise (Hint: compromise is what you do at the end AFTER the negotiation, not right in the beginning).
WHY does she think SHE is the one to bring the much needed change - and that change will have to be implemented against fierce restistance.
Stay out of the kitchen if you cannot stand the heat.
That makes her almost as selfish as Clinton - or Obama (Harris, mayor pete, Beto, ...and lots of other candidates). WHY do they think the country needs them - when they immediately give in to the pressure. OK some do it for fame and money and because they lust after power - but Warren does not seem the type. - Some professoral vanity maybe ?
After the campaign of Sanders was so succesful Warren might have had second thoughts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
6:00 Noam Chomsky disagrees. Watergate: one big players stepped on the toes of another - so the media covered THAT.
Trump provides one reason for impeachment after the next. THEN he goes after Joe Biden - boom.
At the same time when Watergate broke a illegal spying program on law abiding activists was unveilled THAT did not get coverage. (see his interview with Andrew Carr from BBC, it is from many years ago - and I think N.C. mentions Cointelpro).
As for Iran Contra - when that broke there was an opening and N.C. says that leading journalists told him that they were able to _squeeze some stories _ in that would not have been published in other times.
Noam Chomsky also says he knows people that are heralded as leading journalists (well he would) - and they are even more cynical about the free press than he his.
1971: Eight civil rights activists also incl. professors from a univesity broke into a FBI office in Pennsylvania and successfully stole important files that proved what they had known all along. The government spied on them and used disinformation tactics against the Civil Rights Movement / anti war movement (or used agitators, surveilled Dr. King, sent him a blackmail letter urging him to do the only honorable thing - obviously to kill himself because of alledged infidelity).
They sent copies to several outlets asking them to publish the files which included the proof that the government illegally surveilled the Civil Rights movement and that they sent in mules and agitators. One newspaper - the LA Times I think - not only did not publish the story, they also handed over the copies after the FBI asked them to do it (sources !!!).
That helped the government to go after the whistleblowers. Copies contain an identifier at what machine the copy was made (printers still contain that !). and back in the day (Muhammad Ali had a big fight, and they chose that night for the burglary) copy machines were not widespread. One professor (of theology) made the copies at the university and sure enough, the FBI showed up at campus.
His wife had visited the office before to find out something about the location. But she wore sunglasses and I think she was not good at disguising herself - she acted as someone that wanted to apply for a job.
Anyway, the professor got a visit from the FBI at home, 30 minutes after the FBI left, his wife came home. So they were lucky (the files they were able to steal contained information beyond what they wanted to prove, but at that time neither they nor the media realized how much the stolen information implicated the FBI. A program was mentioned - and only later it came out what it was.
These were smart and disciplined (and principled people). The plan was carefully executed (except for the wife and the alleged job interview). They drove in several cars to a house after the burglary. Then they never met again and did not communicate (and they had settled their affairs including who would take care of their children in case they would go to prison).
2
-
2
-
P+ Elizabeth + Another World Please post your comments (they are good) on THEIR social media (all progressive, they ALL dropped the ball when it was time to be courageous).
Noam Chomsky: Nixon was the last liberal president..... (me: WTF ?)
....because he FEARED the grassroots (not because he had a liberal philosophy), so he ended the Vietnam War and signed the Clean Air and Water Act *.
But there are limits how much the grassroots can drag a hostile or unwilling president
But Nixon also got done:
Weed defined as a schedule 1 drug like heroin (only those 2) = very addictivie, very dangerous, no medical value. Not even cocain is classified like that - it is a schedule 2 drug. That is important because the alleged danger of weed is the pretext for harsh punitive laws. Also note: no D or R president saw any reason to change that unscientific b.s. classification. Also not those who had used weed = Obama and Bill Clinton).
Covert war against the grassroots, they were infiltrated.
Assassination by cop / FBI of Black Panther members.
It used to be illegal that healthcare is for profit, Nixon changed that (around 1973).
Started the War On Drugs (to stick it to anti war hippies and black people, part of the covert war)
Southern Strategy
So dragging a hostile / resisiting president or politician does not get you very far.
Frank Thomas: "Fundamental change comes from the grassroots, whenever they had a mildly supportive president a lot of progress was made."
I think AOC, Sanders, Ilhan Omar, Rho Khana, ... might be better material for being pressured into doing the right thing than many others. Not sure if Sanders can be pressured, he is a big disappointment. More afraid of getting the Ralph Nader treatment than being Organizer in chief.
You do not ask for half a loaf. You ask for the whole loaf - then you have to compromise, maybe.
So ... giving "my good friend Joe" and the D establishment everything - in exchange for NOTHING ?
Ideally they would LEAD and there would be no need to pressure them .... Oh, well .....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yep, because she might disappoint - as opposed to the shill that is the alternavite to Tuner. Brown for SURE will sell out and she already has arranged for the "get rich" part by shoving over contracts to her boyfriends company, if she starts that at the state level, imagine what she would do in the House. The D nominee will very likely win the general, so it will be Turner or Brown.
Now, that is a no brainer.
Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, AOC did not get "rich" They just do not have it in them to be the fierce fighters they needed to be (and in the case of AOC and also Tlaib) promised to be. They are getting death threats, it is possible that and the establishment coming down on them like a ton of bricks has shown some effect).
They are nice people that would need to find their inner asshole / renegade.
They would be needed as leaders, which they are not. But they are acceptable followers.
Turner is not shy to create some stir, she was one of the VERY few that dared to offend the Clinton machine in 2015.
And she is more mature than AOC and Omar, so maybe she will not lose her cool when the establishment gets nasty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sanders had it tough. Unseated a big whig in the VT Democratic party and long term mayor of Burlington in 1980. Funky stuff going on, Sanders in the lead during election night, the lead changed in weird ways, at some point his supporters threatened to kick down the door if the civil servants would not come out and count the votes before witnesses. Sanders won with 18 more votes, 10 after recount.
Had only 2 - 3 supporters among the aldermen, plus there were a few Republicans - and the pissed buddies of the ousted mayor. Sanders did not even have the veto power with those 2 or 3 musketeers, so first thing they fired the secretary of the mayor. First budget was written on the kitchen table with help of volunteers.
Sanders did what he could and communicated with the voters (rumour has it one could often hear loud voices arguing in city hall during that time).
The voters noticed and did not appreciate the games, next election gave him more support among the aldermen (and that was likely within a year. The mayor is elected every 2 years, so I guess they vote for the city council in the other years). So then he had at least enough support among the aldermen to have the veto power and started working on a case to case base with Republicans. And tried to engage the local businesses.
They were a white community (but they became a safe haven for queer people). But there was for sure poverty and it is not like they had these big budgets.
Sanders came up with new concepts (to finance public housing), youth work, saw to it that the police got equal pay (there was a difference and he got the support of one of the police unions over that issue). But also that they came from the community and served. - admitted that was certainly easier to accomplish in Burlington AND likely they were not hostile towards a part of the population to begin with. But Sanders looked at that issue.
There are these cute hilariously amateurish city TV videos from old archives. mayor Sanders roams the city and talks to constituents. A little awkward sometimes but I guess if you had complaints (as a business owner, teenager, parent or citizen) it was not hard to get hold of the mayor and have a 10 or 20 minute chat with him.
I think one issue was the snow plough. Some areas were more equal than others and were serviced well and early - and other citiens had to make it through poorly cleared streets. Driving to work early in the morning on snowy and icy streets. Sanders changed that as well.
I think there was some contracting-among-friends going on under the former mayor (a Republican Lite), so Sanders found some budgets when renegotiating contracts.
It is remarkable that you will not hear bad reports about his time in Burlington. You bet there have been attempts to find dirt. The people who worked with him are loyal, if they talk to the press at all, it is positive (or funny) stuff. There must be people who dislike him, but even they cannot leak to the media.
2